For Your Consideration, Use or Comment: A Logical Disproof of the Biblical God Concept - Atheist Nexus2018-03-19T14:58:55Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/for-your-consideration-use-or-6?groupUrl=unreasonablefaith&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A743118&xg_source=activity&groupId=2182797%3AGroup%3A87911&feed=yes&xn_auth=noNo problem!tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-22:2182797:Comment:9531762010-08-22T22:12:20.820ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
No problem!
No problem! OK, I think I got it now. Tha…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-22:2182797:Comment:9530922010-08-22T20:18:33.538ZRalf Muellerhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/RalfMueller
OK, I think I got it now. Thanks for the clarification and for your patience.
OK, I think I got it now. Thanks for the clarification and for your patience. There is no unsharp use of th…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-19:2182797:Comment:9498672010-08-19T16:03:03.419ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
There is no unsharp use of the word 'acknowledge'. Throughout the disproof it means the same thing. It means 'attest to'. As such:<br />
<br />
<i>By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions</i> means that they cannot attest to the proposition that there is an external reality associated with their perceptions and<br />
<br />
<i>In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence</i> means that in order to worship something one must…
There is no unsharp use of the word 'acknowledge'. Throughout the disproof it means the same thing. It means 'attest to'. As such:<br />
<br />
<i>By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions</i> means that they cannot attest to the proposition that there is an external reality associated with their perceptions and<br />
<br />
<i>In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence</i> means that in order to worship something one must attest to the proposition that it exists.<br />
<br />
The word has the same meaning in both cases.<br />
<br />
You should now be able to see why the concept of a Biblical type god is self-contradictory. It wants us to do the impossible of attesting to its existence while it is supposed to be perfect in goodness at the same time.<br />
<br />
If you think a Biblical type god does not want us to attest to its existence read Genesis 22 where such a god without provocation orders Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac to him as a burnt offering. In that he expected obedience he expected Abraham to be attesting to his existence. Dear John,
thanks for your p…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-19:2182797:Comment:9495942010-08-19T11:48:09.980ZRalf Muellerhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/RalfMueller
Dear John,<br />
<br />
thanks for your patient reply.<br />
<br />
<i>Not knowing whether there is an external reality is not the same as denying the existence of one. You don't seem to have the definition clear.</i><br />
<br />
You are right. I apologize for my misreading. Now I understand that you meant a being who is not a solipsist but a skeptic.<br />
<br />
But I'm afraid I've still found a problem with your reductio ad absurdum prove. I think it is caused by an unsharp use of the word 'to acknowledge':<br />
<br />
<i>By definition it is…</i>
Dear John,<br />
<br />
thanks for your patient reply.<br />
<br />
<i>Not knowing whether there is an external reality is not the same as denying the existence of one. You don't seem to have the definition clear.</i><br />
<br />
You are right. I apologize for my misreading. Now I understand that you meant a being who is not a solipsist but a skeptic.<br />
<br />
But I'm afraid I've still found a problem with your reductio ad absurdum prove. I think it is caused by an unsharp use of the word 'to acknowledge':<br />
<br />
<i>By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.</i><br />
<br />
In this definition of a being, acknowledge is used in the sense of true, rock-solid knowledge: I have sure knowledge of my perceptions, but apart from that, I can only assume that there are objects which cause these perceptions.<br />
<br />
However, in your definition of worship, the same word 'acknowledge' is used in the sense of belief, not knowledge:<br />
<i>The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence...</i><br />
<br />
Assuming (i.e. believing) something is quite different from really knowing it. By combining 'belief' and 'knowledge' into the word 'acknowledge', you make an assumption I cannot follow.<br />
<br />
What the gods demand is not to acknowledge them in the sense of knowing (which would indeed be impossible), but just in the sense of assuming their existence, i.e. belief (which is possible). So the reductio ad absurdum doesn't hold, I'm afraid. The logical problem with your…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-18:2182797:Comment:9486882010-08-18T20:48:34.579ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
<i>The logical problem with your disprove lies within your definition of a being:<br />
"The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality" To me, this sounds exactly like the defintion of solipsism, which denies the existence of an external universe.</i><br />
<br />
Not knowing whether there is an external reality is not the same as denying the existence of one. You don't seem to have the definition clear. So far as whether a…
<i>The logical problem with your disprove lies within your definition of a being:<br />
"The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality" To me, this sounds exactly like the defintion of solipsism, which denies the existence of an external universe.</i><br />
<br />
Not knowing whether there is an external reality is not the same as denying the existence of one. You don't seem to have the definition clear. So far as whether a disproof is appropriate it is better to have one (indeed many) than to not. Dear John,
I'm afraid there…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-08-18:2182797:Comment:9484982010-08-18T17:09:50.762ZRalf Muellerhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/RalfMueller
Dear John,<br />
<br />
I'm afraid there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a Biblical type god.<br />
<br />
The logical problem with your disprove lies within your definition of a being:<br />
"The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality"<br />
<br />
To me, this sounds exactly like the defintion of solipsism, which denies the existence of an external universe. Because the universe contains other beings, a solipsist would deny the…
Dear John,<br />
<br />
I'm afraid there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a Biblical type god.<br />
<br />
The logical problem with your disprove lies within your definition of a being:<br />
"The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality"<br />
<br />
To me, this sounds exactly like the defintion of solipsism, which denies the existence of an external universe. Because the universe contains other beings, a solipsist would deny the existence of any other being (except himself) as well. Thus, a solipsist could torture or kill other beings without hesitation - because those other beings are not real but philosophical zombies which have no feelings.<br />
<br />
What I am trying to say: solipsism is a very dangerous and inhumane point of view. In opposition to solipsism, realism does grant existence to the external universe, taking other being's feelings as real as your own feelings.<br />
<br />
Starting from a solipsistic point of view, you could in fact prove not only the non-existence of gods (which to me, as a realist, are non-existent as well), but also prove the non-existence of other human beings (which, from my realist point of view, do exist).<br />
<br />
Having said that, I'd like to point out an even more important thing: We don't really need to disprove the existence of gods, as the believers cannot prove their existence. If we had to disprove any arbitrary claim made by anybody, we'd be busy till the end of our days.<br />
<br />
Instead of that, it is sufficient to point out that the claim is arbitrary. We just need to use scientific standards: In science, a claim must be proved first before any scientist takes it seriously. Religious ideas like the existence of gods have never been proved. Of course, such attempts have been made, but none of them holds true - see Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.<br />
<br />
But leaving theoretical proves aside, science has made great progress in empirically disproving many claims of religion. For instance, in the mentioned book, the outcome of an interesting scientific experiment is described: The uselessness of prayers.<br />
<br />
Other empirical, scientific facts have disproved religious claims about the origin of life (evolution) and consciousness (neuro science).<br />
<br />
Non-Theists are in such a strong scientific position, that they don't need to disprove the existence of gods. Thank you!tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-03-01:2182797:Comment:7442642010-03-01T22:51:59.445ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
Thank you!
Thank you! Hell, I'm convinced!
nice one…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-02-28:2182797:Comment:7431182010-02-28T21:09:18.399ZCrispy Seahttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Crispy
Hell, I'm convinced!<br />
nice one dude
Hell, I'm convinced!<br />
nice one dude